Archived story
As originally published
Baldwin’s Water & Sewer Use Ordinance #2024-10152 remains under scrutiny nearly a year after the City Council approved it, following a resident’s Aug. 5, 2025, concern that an annexation-related requirement had not truly been removed. The mayor said he needed time to work with the parties involved, including city counsel and staff. That response, recorded in meeting minutes, did not include a final interpretation, amendment or council action.
The dispute concerns the path owners of property contiguous to Baldwin must follow to obtain city water and sewer service. Those services are essential, and the wording determines whether a neighboring property owner must merely submit an annexation application or must ultimately become part of the city. Council’s 2024 change made that distinction central: annexation is no longer mandatory, but an annexation application is still required.
The city first scheduled consideration of the ordinance on Oct. 15, 2024, then placed a second reading on its Oct. 28 agenda. At that later meeting, council approved the modified second reading by a 4-0 vote. The approved change to Section 1.13(e) replaced a mandate to annex with a requirement that contiguous-property owners apply for annexation, setting up the later disagreement over whether the promised policy shift had been fully carried out.
Council members who supported the October 2024 motion approved language that preserved an application step while removing mandatory annexation itself. The resident who raised the issue in 2025 challenged whether the annexation-related requirement had in fact been eliminated. The mayor did not announce a conclusion; instead, he said he would review the matter with counsel, staff and the involved parties. The minutes document the concern and the promised review, not a determination that either side’s interpretation is correct.
One action is settled: Baldwin completed and approved the ordinance’s second reading on Oct. 28, 2024. The resident’s later objection was a challenge to how the rule should be understood or applied, not a recorded repeal or amendment. The public record described here does not establish that the city changed the ordinance, formally interpreted it, or took another final action after the mayor said he would review the matter.
The next meaningful public step would be a city record showing the result of that review—such as meeting minutes, a staff recommendation, an ordinance amendment or another council action. Until then, contiguous-property owners seeking service face a rule requiring an annexation application but not annexation itself. It remains undecided whether Baldwin will clarify the language, revise it or leave the 2024 provision unchanged.